Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: light into ashes Date: Nov 19, 2012 5:45am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: New Yorker Article

The writer did his homework. It gets much more interesting in the second half, after he gets past the Dead 101 history of the band. He goes into detail about the Archive collection and even mentions some reviewers on this forum - "a virtual community of anonymous cranks."
He also did a bunch of interviews - including taper Bob Wagner, Rob Eaton, Lemieux (who gets quietly dissed a couple times), the (anonymous) guy still holding onto his stash of Betty Boards, Betty herself, and a rather impatient Phil.
He makes the common Dead-interviewer error of trying to ask Phil about specific shows! (Being in particular raptures over 11/30/80, he tries to stir Phil's memory: "Scar>Fire? The Fox in Atlanta? I don't remember. I may have consciously blocked out some of this stuff...")
Phil, of course, admits he's not spending any more time listening to old shows: “It’s tremendously time-consuming, and often really boring, to listen back to what you did years ago. What bores me the most is listening to show after show, and it’s just average. You’re just going through the motions. Everything seemed better at the time than it turns out to be on tape.”

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Nov 19, 2012 6:23am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: New Yorker Article

Great read. You can tell he not only did his homework, but he genuinely loves the music.

And hey, CC gets an actual mention! CC, you've made the big time.

Funny: Lemieux says that out of an estimated 5,000 emails he's gotten over the years, only about five have been from women. That makes me one of five. Seriously, a 1:1000 ratio?

We also learn that Bob Wagner is now a doctor whose wife rolls her eyes at Dead talk. Hmmm, sound familiar to anyone? LOL.

I think we should all listen to 11/30/80 now ... make the writer happy ... poor guy gets his show shrugged off by Lemieux and Phil both. Maybe we can get up a cranky discussion here and make his day :-)

Although I'm not feeling too sorry for him. He did get the New Yorker to pay him for spending time in the vault, driving around Marin with Lemieux, etc etc. Nice work if you can get it.




Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: light into ashes Date: Nov 19, 2012 8:11pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: New Yorker Article

Yes, it was hilarious that a premier old-time Dead taper now has to leave the house to discuss the Dead!
But notice how few women, aside from Betty, figure in the article. (Actually, the author points out a couple times that his wife makes fun of his fixation with the Dead!)
The whole collecting scene seems to be easily 99% men. (I wonder how many of the 700,000 people that downloaded that '79 show, or how many E72 box-set buyers, were women... Considering that forums like this one are at least 99% male as well, it's hard to say!)

This post was modified by light into ashes on 2012-11-20 04:11:12

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cosmicharIie Date: Nov 19, 2012 8:42am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: New Yorker Article

the big time?? uh oh...I have not gotten that far. Wild guess, about some krazed political rant?

Edit: After a long ctrl/F search on every variation of cosmicharlie and rastamon, I can be rest assured that CC must mean Crazycatpeekin - whew

This post was modified by cosmicharIie on 2012-11-19 16:42:49

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Nov 19, 2012 9:01am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: New Yorker Article

Ha--I think Rose meant "Clementine's Caboose", but I also did a double take thinking she meant you...

Rose?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cosmicharIie Date: Nov 19, 2012 9:10am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: New Yorker Article

durn! no fame for me ;(

tho there is a 2 second clip of me on youtube walking up the stairs on Jerryday a few years ago.

Also making the turn onto the Great Highway during a 90's Bay to Breakers live KPIX broadcast. Fame (sigh)can be sooo fleeting, but I'm a legend in my mind!

This post was modified by cosmicharIie on 2012-11-19 17:10:30

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Nov 19, 2012 7:55pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Cosmic vs Clementines Caboose

So you've already got your 15 seconds!

Well, maybe 4 seconds. You've got 11 seconds left.

But anyway, your shorthand is Cosmic. Clementinescaboose is CC. And tragically, he doesn't even seem to know he's famous, since he hasn't weighed in here ... maybe he can't think of how to explain that "origins of hip-hop" claim ...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: clementinescaboose Date: Nov 20, 2012 6:12am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Cosmic vs Clementines Caboose...Here I am!

Oh rest assured, AR I do, and it's definitely going to my head. I'm just too damn good for this place now.

Though I look back on many of my reviews as a bit silly and hasty, I did enjoy writing them, and it is fun to compare what I think of a song or show now compared to two or three years ago.

As far as my 6/27/69 review, my exact words were: "complete with hip hop beats from Billy K!" So I wasn't exactly trying to make any assertions, it was more of an observation of the sound and feel of the playing to my ears. Damn media twisting my words!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: light into ashes Date: Nov 20, 2012 11:59am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Cosmic vs Clementines Caboose...Here I am!

Hmm, I can imagine Lemieux angrily writing the author: "That car ride did NOT go like that! I've been misrepresented!"....

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Lou Davenport Date: Nov 19, 2012 6:27pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: New Yorker Article

You'll always be one in a thousand in my book, AR.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Nov 19, 2012 8:23pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: New Yorker Article

Thanks. Um, er ... I think.

You didn't mention the name of the book, though :-)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Tidewater four ten O nine Date: Nov 19, 2012 8:54pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: New Yorker Article

Congrats, you're now (officially) one of the boys !!!!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Nov 19, 2012 8:11am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: My bad...

Whoops--sorry Rose, missed your post, but provided a sep thread on the topic (sex ratio biz that caught both of our eyes...).

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: segan63 Date: Nov 19, 2012 6:26am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: New Yorker Article

I know what you mean about dissing Lemieux, "David Crosby physique". That was rough...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Reade Date: Nov 19, 2012 10:57am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: New Yorker Article

That comment was directed towards the Warner Bros. archivist in Burbank, not DL.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: light into ashes Date: Nov 19, 2012 6:55pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: New Yorker Article

No, a couple other, subtler things...like Betty saying, "I never talk to Lemieux. He wasn't there."
Or, worse, Lemieux talking through the writer's favorite show! "He talked through the transition." That's about the most damning thing you could say about the Dead's archivist... (You just know Latvala would keep quiet, except maybe to shout, "Wooh! Awesome! Play that again!")

To be fair, Lemieux probably thought he was still being interviewed and didn't pick up on the author's "shut up!" signals.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Nov 19, 2012 7:20pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: New Yorker Article

Actually I took that differently. The writer, Nick Paumgarten, is extremely skilled, and to me he was setting up a clever structure for his story.

He HAD to have people not care about his beloved 11/30, or it wouldn't have worked.

The show and his obsession with it allows him to bring his own story into the piece and to poke gentle fun at Deadheadland from the inside while elaborating its complexities and disconnects. One thing he's doing is exploring the taped legacy and the genuine and inevitable contrasts between the people who made the music (Phil), the people whose job it is to make quality decisions about marketable releases (Lemieux), and the people who are the reason it survives at all (the vast once-unwashed masses of often undiscriminating but highly opinionated and passionate Deadheads).

If Lemieux and Phil had raved about 11/30/80, you can bet your bottom dollar Paumgarten wouldn't have built his angle around it.

Why did he play 11/30 for Lemieux? To get him to go "Wooh! Awesome! I should release it!"? No, he wanted his reaction for the story.

Why did he ask Phil about 11/30? Because he really thought Phil would remember it? Uh, I doubt it. He wanted the expected reaction: "Sorry, can't remember it."

Betty's quote highlights another aspect of that disconnect: To some people at the historic heart of Deadland, it was a personal experience, their own life story, and even Lemieux doesn't "get it" and doesn't really matter because what he does isn't related to what the Dead is to them.

I don't see it as a slam on Lemieux. It's just highlighting different perspectives on what this thing "The Grateful Dead" was and is. Ultimately that's what the piece is about, using the angle of the taped legacy and the hook of his own love for a particular show and the way it was nurtured "back in the day" by those imperfect but treasured tapes.


Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: light into ashes Date: Nov 19, 2012 8:15pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: New Yorker Article

Hmm, I see - a journalist's take.

He did focus a lot more on the "inside" of Deadheadland than the Deadheads' side, it seemed. Which makes sense - a story interviewing various people behind the Dead's tapes & releases is more 'newsworthy' & interesting than if he interviewed, say, the other members of his beloved Fox's Den about their reactions to the Dead!
It did leave a bit of a disconnect, though, between his descriptions of the objectionable Deadheads of old, and the barely mentioned Dead fans of today. Aside from dropping a few comments on the "silent minority of otherwise unobjectionable aesthetes" (ahem) and the cranky Archive review community, one wonders who is snapping up all those E72 box sets & downloading all those mediocre 1979 auds... Since the article seemed to be written for outsiders unfamiliar with the Dead scene, that felt like a little hole in the narrative. (On the other hand, he has enough space to drop in lots of interesting little details only fans would notice.)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Nov 19, 2012 8:39pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: New Yorker Article

Yeah, he had to pitch it to his editor. Besides, this way he got paid to fly to California, see the vault, interview all kinds of folks up and down the coast, have lunch with Phil, etc.

Much better than calling up his old cronies. That's what you do when you work for a publication without a big expense account or a deadline of ... sheesh, what did he have? Six months or something? Holy moly.

I felt he wove his own perspective and experience into the story to represent the Deadhead side pretty well. The "Dead fans of today" are definitely in the article: they're Dr. Bob and folks going to what their wives call "Dork Star Orchestra" and old friends who gather in a Manhattan apartment to rave about the Fox and its "noodly bits."

Somehow I hear that part in a Monty Python voice. Ah, the noodly bits! Love it.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Reade Date: Nov 19, 2012 11:04am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: New Yorker Article

That comment was directed towards the Warner Bros. archivist in Burbank, not DL.

This post was modified by Reade on 2012-11-19 19:01:47

This post was modified by Reade on 2012-11-19 19:04:25

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: segan63 Date: Nov 19, 2012 12:00pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: New Yorker Article

Ah, that makes more sense...